Esau I Have
|I have referenced several articles here. That is not an endorsement of the websites, but simply pointing out some well-reserched material on Esau.
Some of the statements in the Bible have led a number of people
to feel that Esau is a good example of what is referred to as
predestination, or the idea that before men were ever created,
God had already chosen who He would save and who He would not
save. This is one of the primary doctrines of Calvinism, also known as Reformed Theology.
Let’s take a closer
look at Esau and see if this is something that his story really
time we have any indication of anything about him is before he
was born. His mother, Rebekah, was somewhat alarmed about the
amount of activity going on inside her and inquired of God about
said to her,
“Two nations are in your
and two peoples from within you will be
one people will be stronger than
and the older will serve the younger.”
are a few things to note about this response from God:
1. There is no indication of anything
good or bad about either of the children.
The nations arising from each will be separated, but the timing
is not given.
3. One of these nations will be
stronger than the other, at least at some point.
The nation arising from the older of the two children will either
at some point, or eventually, end up serving the nation arising
from the younger of the two children.
don’t even know that the children are boys for sure yet!
The children are, as is well
known, Jacob and Esau. Esau was born first. The boys were clearly
not identical twins, as their difference in appearance is noted
from the first. So there is certainly no confusion about who
is who there.
We then read,
about the boys,
boys grew up, and Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the
open country, while Jacob was a quiet man, staying among the
tents. Isaac, who had a taste for wild game, loved Esau, but
Rebekah loved Jacob.
The word for “loved”
there is ‘ahab, which can mean “love or
loved”, but also, “have affection for” or “be
allied with.” It does not indicate in either case that
the parent hated the other child. It does indicate favoritism,
They are young men
in the next passage. Verses 29-34 tell the famous story of Esau,
very hungry, trading his birthright for some of the stew or soup
that Jacob is cooking. Some comments must be made here to correct
some misconceptions. First of all, the birthright was literally
something that was Esau’s right by birth. It was the double
possession of all his father’s material wealth, but also,
along with it, the responsibility for the family as, when Isaac
died, Esau would then become head of the family group. The fact
that Esau was born first showed to the people that he was God’s
choice to receive the double portion and take control of the
family affairs in the future.
we are told that Esau sold this birthright to Jacob for stew!
And the Bible then tells us that ‘thus, Esau despised his
used for ‘despised’ means ‘disdain’ as
well. Thus we have the indication that Esau considered his birthright
of no value! This, because he was hungry?
following has nothing to do with Calvinism or any other doctrine,
but with what might have happened historically. Keeping in mind
that the first four generations after the Flood lived until about
an average of 400 years, we can see there is quite an overlapping
of generations here. There are a number of extra-biblical stories
that have come down through the millennia in not only Hebrew
culture, but other Middle Eastern cultures as well. We know from
the Bible that Nimrod was a mighty hunter. We know that Esau
was a hunter. An interesting website references the book of Jasher
with these two facts:
Although the identity of
Nimrod is disputable, which will be explained in a moment, there
is a consistent theme in the stories about Esau and his sold
birthright which are connected with both Abraham’s funeral
and a murderous rampage by Esau afterwards. If, for some reason,
something Esau did made him think he now had access to much wider
power than Isaac’s birthright could give him, then we do
have an understanding as to why he may have despised his birthright:
he may have been thinking of it as a much lesser value than what
he could get for himself. We should also note that Esau said
to Jacob, “I am about to die!” Was this from hunger?
Doubtful, or he would have been too weak to move. There is a
strong indication there that he was being hunted down himself
and was on the move.
the identity of Nimrod is disputable where the book of Jasher
is concerned is because there is also a consistent mention in
ALL the Middle Eastern stories dating back to the post-flood
years that Nimrod was killed and dismembered by either Shem or
some of his cohorts. The only way these legends could be successfully
combined is if Esau was actively engaged in the Semite struggle
against the Hamites at that point. Even so, it is more probable,
if the Jasher account is true in any way, that the man Esau killed
was Nimrod’s widow’s son or, if Hislop’s analysis of the Nimrod story is correct in “Two Babylons”,
then Esau may have killed the man who was claimed by his mother
(Nimrod’s widow) to be Nimrod reincarnated. However it
works, or even if the person identified by the book of Jasher
is simply the one on Nimrod’s throne, we have a consistent
connection that seems to hold throughout the ancient stories
in this account.
Bible is primarily concerned with man’s relationship
to God, we read only the briefest of accounts regarding this
incident. There is, however, an interesting Jewish analysis of Esau’s frame of mind concerning this incident written by Rabbi Mordechai Kamenetzky, which has some interesting applications to our hearts today.
The fact that, in the Hebrew,
Esau’s blessing paralleled in form and language so closely
to Jacob’s is very interesting. The following rather long quote is from a fascinating article by David Richter which discusses the reasons there are different translations of the blessing given Esau:
"The blind patriarch Isaac has sent his firstborn and favorite son Esau to hunt for venison and to make his favorite savory stew before he gives his ancestral blessing; hearing this, Rebecca incites her own favorite twin, Jacob, to masquerade as his brother, dressing him in Esau's best clothing, with animal skin to mimic Esau's hairy hands and neck, and making her own version of the delicacy out of kid. Isaac is a bit suspicious ("the voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau"), but he is also hungry, and despite his doubts he gives Jacob the blessing. No sooner has he done so when Esau comes back with the real venison stew. As soon as Isaac hears the voice of Esau, he trembles violently, realizing what has happened. And then the passage focuses on the other recognition--Esau's realization that his brother has purloined the blessing meant for him---after swindling him out of his birthright. The pathos swells as Esau asks Isaac if his father has only one blessing to bestow, whether there cannot still be a blessing for him too. But Isaac has already given Jacob everything: he has made Jacob lord over his brethren and given him all the material things of life besides: what is left to give Esau? Esau persists: Bless me too, my father, and bitterly bursts into tears. And Isaac relents and blesses Esau too."
"... In Hebrew the first part of it goes
mi-shmanei ha-aretz yihiyeh moshavekha u-mi-tal ha-shamayim me'al.
"Literally the morphemes run "from the fat of the land shall be your encampments and from the dew of the heavens thereon." What exactly does this mean? Comparing a King James and a Revised Standard Version of the bible, you can see that this is an interpretive crux: the two translations give the blessing opposite meanings. KJV translates it as follows: "Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above." RSV has quite a different blessing: "Behold, away from the fatness of the earth shall your dwelling be, and away from the dew of heaven on high." The source of the discrepancy is grammatical ambiguity, .... It is caused by the particle mi which is used twice, the first syllable of mi-shmanei and the second of u-mi-tal. It is the connective form of min which means "from." Like the French "de" and the Latin "ex," min can operate as a partitive ("some of the fat places of the land") or it can express a direction ("away from the fat places of the land"). Which it is depends on the context.
"... the context is set primarily by the adjacent narrative and the surrounding structure of plot and values in which it plays out. The first consideration is that Isaac has told Esau that he has already given Jacob the jackpot and there is nothing left for him. In that case, the blessing cannot be a duplicate of Jacob's. And Esau's blessing goes on "And by thy sword shalt thou live and shalt serve thy brother, and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from thy neck." If Esau is to live by the sword then he is to be a raider, not a farmer, who has no use for the dew of the heavens. Furthermore, after the blessing the narrator continues, "And Esau hated Jacob his brother on account of the blessing with which his father had blessed him and he said in his heart, when the days of mourning for my father are come I shall kill Jacob my brother." Why would Esau want to kill Jacob if he had just been given some of the fat places of the land?
"What clarified the situation and intensified the pathos was going back to the blessing Isaac had given the disguised Jacob. In the Hebrew that blessing begins V'yiten l'kha ha-Elohim mital ha-shamayim umishmanei ha-aretz.
"Here the morphemes go: "The Lord shall give you from the dew of the heavens and from the fat places of the land." With the verb "to give" the mi is unambiguously partitive, as the French "de" is with "donner" or the Latin "ex" with "dare." And by contrast, the mi then seemed unambiguously privative in Esau's blessing. The click of intelligibility came when I realized that Isaac, looking for a way to bless Esau, had chosen language that almost precisely duplicated the language with which he had meant to bless him, even though with the change of the verbs (yihiyeh instead of yiten; the verb "to be" instead of "to give") it actually meant the opposite. What was the motive for this play on words? Was Isaac trying to pull the wool over the eyes of ... Adonai? Was he trying to reassure Esau? Conceivably a little of both.... I rather thought, though, that it was primarily a gesture meant for his own ears, trying to pretend a little that everything was still all right and the blessing had been given as planned.
"Isaac is not the only member of his family given to rueful wordplay and ironic punning at times of high emotion. Esau himself asks within this passage "Is not he rightly named Jacob (ya'akov) for has he not now tricked me (ya'akveni) twice?--- had not Jacob taken his birthright (bikhorati) and now his blessing (birkhati)? Those two words look almost exactly the same, with just two consonants reversed, particularly in a torah scroll without the vowels."
What we do know for sure
is that Jacob received the blessing by deception, and yet God
honored it. We can see there was some animosity between the brothers
quite early on, or Jacob would not have asked for the birthright
in return for food. Had his mother told him he would be the more
powerful one, according to prophecy? We don’t know.
With Jacob a deceiver and Esau
possibly a murderer, we have a couple of young men that probably
none of us would want for neighbors! And yet, it is not these
sins which determine their final destinies, but rather their
responses to correction from God. If we go far ahead in the Bible
to Hebrews 12, we will see the warning:
See that no one is sexually immoral,
or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance
rights as the oldest son.
we read in Malachi 1 that God hated Esau. Paul repeats this in
The question then
becomes, did Esau behave the way he did because God hated him
from the beginning, or did God hate him because of the way Esau
chose to behave? Essentially, the first position is Calvinist
and the second non-Calvinist.
is imperative that we allow Bible to explain Bible.
Esau was also known as Edom. Right before the book
of Jonah in the Bible is a tiny little book of one chapter, Obadiah.
The focus of Obadiah is on Edom/Esau. And the reason God hated
Esau is stated clearly here:
of heart, v. 3
Because of the violence against
Jacob, v. 10
For not intervening on behalf of
Jacob when that people was under attack, v. 11
looking down on his brother in the day of his misfortune, v.
For entering the destroyed city and participating
in the ransacking, v. 13
For ambushing their
fugitives, v. 14
this is no longer talking about two brothers, but about the two
nations that came from them!
this is precisely what Malachi is also referring to: look at
the first five verses of the book say:
An oracle: The word of the Lord to Israel
have loved you,” says the Lord.
you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’
not Esau Jacob’s brother?” the Lord says, “Yet
I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned
his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the
may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild
is what the Lord Almighty says: “They may build, but I
will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people
always under the wrath of the Lord. You will see it with your
own eyes and say, ‘Great is the Lord – even beyond
the borders of Israel!”
“They….” The entire people that
came from Esau are being spoken of as being hated. Whether or
not Esau personally was is not even being discussed here, but
the people as a group are.
when Paul quotes Malachi in Romans 9, he is referring to what
happened to the people, not to the individual sons. And in Obadiah
the reasons for this hatred from God are clearly delineated.
In other words, there is no evidence biblically for the Calvinist
position where Esau is concerned. There is no evidence at all
that he was somehow hated by God from before birth. We do not
even know about the man personally, as even a surface examination
of the Scriptures involved indicate that it is not the individuals
God is indicating hate for, but one of the nations that came
from the two of them.
back into the old legends, there seems to be an incredible depth
to the history of the two brothers that we are missing. However,
all that aside, the Bible does give us everything we need to
know about them as pictures of man’s relationship with
God, which is what the Bible is about. We do know that Esau accepted
a good part of the results of the patriarchal blessing from Jacob
with the gift of the livestock. We know that he helped bury their
father, which indicates that the two brothers worked together
in at least some things in later life.
Did God hate Esau personally? He very well may
have, and the despising of the birthright is used in Hebrews
as evidence of his godlessness. This godlessness, and his marriage
to pagan wives, would have affected not only his children, but
their children and the children after them as well, in agreement
with what we read in Exodus 20:5 – ”Thou
shalt not bow down thyself to them [idols], nor serve them: for
I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation
of them that hate me…”
The quote from Malachi 1, “Jacob I have loved
but Esau I have hated” has nothing to do with the two brothers
themselves but, as a reading will show and Obadiah explains quite
clearly, has to do with the nations that came from the brothers.
And since the reasons are given for God’s hate of Esau,
we cannot then accept the use this man as an example of predestination
in the Calvinist argument.
Helen Setterfield, 2005; some revision and links checked January, 2012